GR 92541; (November, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 92541 November 13, 1991
MA. CARMEN G. AQUINO-SARMIENTO, petitioner, vs. MANUEL L. MORATO (in his capacity as Chairman of the MTRCB) and the MOVIE & TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ma. Carmen G. Aquino-Sarmiento, a member of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB), requested access to the Board’s voting slips used in film classification. Chairman Manuel L. Morato denied the request, asserting the slips were private “conscience votes.” The Board later passed Resolution No. 10-89, declaring these records confidential. Separately, Morato unilaterally ordered cuts to a film previously approved by a review committee, citing Board Resolution No. 88-1-25, which authorized the Chairman to downgrade controversial films. Petitioner challenged both resolutions, arguing they violated constitutional rights and exceeded statutory authority.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) whether Resolution No. 10-89, which declares voting slips confidential, violates the constitutional right to access official records; and (2) whether Resolution No. 88-1-25, allowing the Chairman to unilaterally alter a review committee’s decision, constitutes an unlawful delegation of discretionary power.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring both resolutions null and void. On the first issue, the Court held that the voting slips are official documents integral to the MTRCB’s governmental function of film classification. Their character as “conscience votes” does not transform them into private papers; they are prepared pursuant to official duty and are subject to constitutional public scrutiny under Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution . Resolution No. 10-89, which restricts access, is invalid.
On the second issue, the Court examined Presidential Decree No. 1986, which vests the power of film classification exclusively in the MTRCB as a collegial body. The Chairman’s role, as chief executive officer, is to implement the Board’s decisions, not to modify or reverse them. Resolution No. 88-1-25 attempted to delegate the Board’s discretionary classification power to the Chairman alone. This violates the legal maxim delegata potestas non potest delegari (a delegated power cannot be further delegated), especially as discretionary authority cannot be sub-delegated. Therefore, the resolution has no legal basis.